wwek 8 reflection

The first section of the reading helped me understand some view points of the news and how they present a news story. The news may be sharing news stories but they are sharing them in they way that the news companies want you to see them. It informed me on the role of an anchorman and how he influences the news. The anchorman's job is not only to present the news story but he is there to act as if the the problems are under control. I feel as if this is acceptable as long as the news isn't being changed or misleading. The second article in the reading explains the concepts of commercials. It says how they are needed by the TV channals to fund their opperations but explains how they are unpopular in the eyes of the viewer.

One segment of news that i find ridiculous is the new about the leprechaun in a tree. At fist i could not tell if this was fake but this was actually shown on a news channal. Its quite ridiculous and at the same time hilarious.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

NET NEUTRALITY

net neutrality is a very wise practice that the government follows. It represents that the media in America all have the same ability to reach their audience. In one of the articles i chose, it stated the FCC tried to create two different classes of internet. This should not be aloud because the internet should give any web sight the ability that a well known or high funded web sight has. The internet is not owned by anyone therefore it should be as fair and have equal opportunity for any web sight.The second article i chose contained a video clip about how the companies that provide internet service will try and milk the web sights for every penny they are worth. Some of these internet providers will charge web sights more money to have a faster connection. This is unfair because the internet providers are not supposed to have any effect on the web sights except let give them the equally same speed. The third article i used gave a counter point of why the internet providers were charging more for faster internet service. They feel as if the internet is a business and will try to make money off of it. I feel as if they should be alloud to make money off of it but at the same time should have no effect on the speed of the web sights.



http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html
http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/network-neutrality

http://0-web.ebscohost.com.enterprise.sacredheart.edu/ehost/detail?hid=122&sid=89f6c951-b40d-4fe8-8d98-336ae6facecb%40sessionmgr111&vid=6&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=55575667

The article presents a discussion of how facts can be misleadingly presented in the mass media in ways which reinforce political biases. Examples are drawn from the lead-up to the Iraq War. Information which supported the view that an American invasion was a good idea is said to have been over-represented in the news media, while information that undermined that argument is said to have been given short shrift. Topics such as self-deception, insularity, and ethnic biases are addressed in terms of sociological, cultural and political factors.

http://0-web.ebscohost.com.enterprise.sacredheart.edu/ehost/detail?hid=122&sid=89f6c951-b40d-4fe8-8d98-336ae6facecb%40sessionmgr111&vid=6&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=37154144

Before the war in Iraq in early 2003, there was a great deal of debate about the role played by journalists during the conflict. Journalists needed access and also, in a dangerous war zone, to be secure. The concept of the 'embedded' journalist was widely discussed. This meant that journalists would effectively join military units, follow them around, get close access to the action, and receive protection. But if the 'embed' conceded some editorial authority to military press officers, was this a price worth paying? This paper reviews findings from public opinion surveys conducted during the war itself about the media coverage. The big broadcast brands such as the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and Sky News were dominant in terms of patronage and along with The Guardian and The Times were also the most trusted sources. The BBC and Sky also received the most votes for accurate, balanced, informative, and interesting coverage. While the public believed that care should be taken with imagery that could be upsetting to children, many also acknowledged that the media had a duty to show the truth of war rather than a sanitized version of it. On the subject of embedded reporters, there were mixed feelings. There was a majority view that embedded reporting did bring people at home closer to the action. In addition, many people thought that it might be difficult for journalists to remain impartial if they got too close to the military.

http://0-web.ebscohost.com.enterprise.sacredheart.edu/ehost/detail?hid=122&sid=89f6c951-b40d-4fe8-8d98-336ae6facecb%40sessionmgr111&vid=6&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=47906601

Criticism of the news media's performance in the months before the 2003 Iraq War has been profuse. Scholars, commentators, and journalists themselves have argued that the media aided the Bush administration in its march to war by failing to air a wide-ranging debate that offered analysis and commentary from diverse perspectives. As a result, critics say, the public was denied the opportunity to weigh the claims of those arguing both for and against military action in Iraq. We report the results of a systematic analysis of every ABC, CBS, and NBC Iraq-related evening news story—1,434 in all—in the 8 months before the invasion (August 1, 2002, through March 19, 2003). We find that news coverage conformed in some ways to the conventional wisdom: Bush administration officials were the most frequently quoted sources, the voices of anti-war groups and opposition Democrats were barely audible, and the overall thrust of coverage favored a pro-war perspective. But while domestic dissent on the war was minimal, opposition from abroad—in particular, from Iraq and officials from countries such as France, who argued for a diplomatic solution to the standoff—was commonly reported on the networks. Our findings suggest that media researchers should further examine the inclusion of non-U.S. views on high-profile foreign policy debates, and they also raise important questions about how the news filters the communications of political actors and refracts—rather than merely reflects—the contours of debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

 

Copyright of Political Communication is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

http://0-web.ebscohost.com.enterprise.sacredheart.edu/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=89f6c951-b40d-4fe8-8d98-336ae6facecb%40sessionmgr111&vid=6&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=57080411

The article discusses mass media representations of the toppling of a statue of dictator Saddam Hussein following the capture of Baghdad, Iraq by the U.S. military during the Iraq War. Emphasis is given to the role of journalists in fomenting propaganda and manufacturing images and commentary in support of the U.S. government's claims regarding victory and liberation of the Iraqi people.